The businessman railed against what he called “A THIRD WORLD ELECTION INTERFERENCE HOAX” as deliberations began in the New York trial where he faces 34 criminal act counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels prior to the 2016 presidential election. case
Similar claims soon ricocheted on social media, amplified by many Trump supporters in Congress and the media.
“The judge in the Trump case in New York just told the jury that they don’t have to agree unanimously on which crime was committed as long as they pick one,” Republican Senator Marco Rubio said on X.
But legal experts say the claims misrepresent the instructions Merchan gave to the 12-member jury that will decide Trump’s fate.
“It is wrong to say that the judge told the jury that unanimity is not necessary to convict,” said David Alan Sklansky, co-director of Stanford University’s Criminal Justice University. (archived here).
In fact, a single opposition among the jurors would result in a hung jury and a mistrial.
Trump’s charges, Merchan’s instructions
De aanklacht is een misdrijf volgens de wet van New York – een stap verder dan het misdrijf van het vervalsen van bedrijfsdocumenten in de tweede graad. They differ in that the crime requires not only the intent to defraud, but also “the intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof” (archived here and here).
De onderliggende aanklagers beweren dat de bedoeling van Trump om te plegen, te helpen of te verbergen een schending is van een staatsverkiezingswet die samenzwering verbiedt “om de verkiezing van wie dan ook voor een openbaar ambt op onwettige wijze te bevorderen of te voorkomen” (hier archived).
34 misdemeanor counts “must be unanimous” (archived here).
However, he noted that jurors do not have to reach a consensus on what “illegal means” Trump may have taken to influence the election. election — which spawned a slew of false claims online about unanimity.
“While you must be unanimous in concluding that the defendant conspired to unlawfully promote or prevent the election of anyone to public office, you do not have to be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were,” Merchan said.
He named three of the accusers to the jury theories: violations of federal election law, violations of tax laws, or the falsification of other business documents.
He also told jurors that they “did not have to be unanimous as to whether the defendant committed the crime personally, or by acting in concert with another, or both.”
“The distinction is between an element of the crime and a means to commit it,” said Randall Eliason, a former U.S. attorney who teaches law at The George Washington. University,
“Het element van de overtreding is dat Trump de documenten heeft vervalst om een andere misdaad te verbergen, in dit geval samenzwerend om op onwettige wijze de verkiezingen te verstoren. The jury must agree unanimously. But they don’t have to be unanimous. what the specific unlawful means were, and the prosecutor offered three different options.”
records.
Sklansky from Stanford told AFP that the instructions of Merchan do not deviate from the standard.
Ric Simmons, a law professor at Ohio State University who previously worked as a prosecutor in New York Districtagreed (archived here).
Simmons and Eliason compared the case with the way in which burglary is prosecuted.
Such convictions require proof that the suspect knowingly entered or unlawfully resided on a property with the intent to commit another crime, such as theft. A prosecutor doesn’t have to specify what other crime the suspect intended to commit — and jurors can disagree as long as they all believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the person intended to commit a crime.
“Literally hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers have been convicted of burglary under these rules,” Simmons said.
Other experts have offered similar analogies about X.
AFP has debunked other misinformation about Trump’s trial here, here and here.
